There are many good posts today that gives a glimmer of hope. Enclosed are two of them. Buck up, Allan!
Seeds of conflict Financial Times Published: December 18 2002 4:00 | Last Updated: December 18 2002 4:00 4db81a0.jpg US patience with the European Union's rejection of genetically modified foods is nearing an end. Having failed to persuade the EU to lift its de facto moratorium on approving new GM products, Washington appears poised to challenge the ban in the World Trade Organisation. But, far from resolving the problem, that would risk turning a tense stand-off into a crisis. As Brussels acknowledges, the US stands to win a WTO case. However, there is little reason to think a legal victory for Washington would cause the EU to open its market. Much more likely, it would stiffen political and popular resistance in countries opposed to GM foods, driving the final nail into faltering efforts to end the ban. EU defiance of a ruling against it would have serious consequences. It would further undermine the authority of the WTO disputes settlement procedures, already jeopardised by EU failure to respect a ruling on hormone-treated beef and by US delays in implementing decisions against its trade laws. If the world's biggest trade powers scoff at international law, why should others bother to heed it? EU failure to comply with an adverse WTO decision on GM foods could prompt the US to retaliate against European exports. As well as unfairly hurting European companies un-connected with the dispute, that would harm the US by raising barriers to imports from the EU. There would be no winners from such reprisals. Despite the compelling economic arguments against doing so, political pressures in the EU to counter-retaliate could then become irresistible. It has a devastating weapon in its existing right to impose $4bn (£2.5bn) of sanctions on the US, which has failed to comply with a WTO ruling against its foreign sales corporation tax law. If that right were exercised, the conflict could swiftly escalate out of control. The potential casualties are incalculable. But an early one would almost certainly be the Doha world trade round. Already facing uncertain prospects, the round would be doomed by a serious rupture in trade relations between Brussels and Washington, whose close co-operation is indispensable to the success of the negotiations. That grim scenario should give the US pause. But it should also have a sobering effect on the EU. Its ban on GM foods is based on no firm scientific evidence that they are unsafe. EU policy has been driven by scaremongering, resentment at US high-pressure tactics and an unedifying combination of political cravenness and opportunism. After the mad cow disease and foot-and-mouth crises, European consumers are unwilling to accept government assurances on food safety. Rebuilding the public trust essential to sound regulation will take years and require real commitment by EU governments to reform. It will not be achieved by bringing to the WTO disputes the organisation cannot hope to resolve. Understandable as US frustration is, litigation and trade wars offer no answers where reason, politics and diplomacy have so far failed. 4db820e.jpg Financial Times of London ============================================================ New Resource: Experts Pave Fresh Path on Globalization Testimony on Expanding the Benefits of Globalization to Working Families and the Poor Earlier this month, the UNs International Labor Organization (ILO), in a first-of-its-kind collaboration, joined with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Brookings Institution to hold a two-day discussion on how to expand the benefits of globalization to poor and working families around the world. Transcripts of this unique event are now available <http://www.ceip.org/files/events/events.asp?EventID=540>online. The conference provided a timely reality check, as top researchers reviewed the empirical evidence regarding the impacts of globalization on workers, the poor and on income inequality. Top analysts and policy makers then laid out concrete policy alternatives in the areas of trade, employment conditions and social safety nets, designed to distribute the benefits of trade and economic integration more broadly across and within countries. This new assessment is immediately relevant, as the sweeping advance of globalization in the 1990s has now encountered significant resistance. The slowdown of the global economy has combined with dissatisfaction in the developing world over what is perceived as a disappointing payoff from liberalization efforts of the 1990s and criticism that globalization has done too little to alleviate poverty. Audience participantsall of whom were experts in the fieldpraised the discussions for going beyond the cliches about globalization and avoiding the usual sterile pro-and-con debate. To access a transcript of each of the panel discussions listed below, visit <http://www.ceip.org/trade>www.ceip.org/trade. Making Globalization Work: Expanding the Benefits of Globalization to Working Families and the Poor December 2, 2002 Welcome & Opening Remarks : Jessica T. Mathews, President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Panel I: Globalization, Poverty, Inequality & Employment Lael Brainard, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution, Moderator Martin Ravallion, Senior Advisor, Development Research Group, World Bank Branko Milanovic, Lead Economist, Development Research Group, World Bank Eddy Lee, Director, International Policy Group and Economic Advisor, ILO Gary Burtless, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution Dinner Keynote Remarks Introductory Remarks: Strobe Talbott, President, The Brookings Institution Keynote Speaker: Senator Chris Dodd Panel II: Are the Terms of Globalization Fair? Karen Tramontano, President, Global Fairness Initiative, Moderator Nancy Birdsall, President, Center for Global Development Zanny Minton-Beddoes, The Economist Gerry Rodgers, Technical Director, World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, ILO Panel III: What Role for Labor Standards in Development and Globalization? Sandra Polaski, Senior Associate Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Moderator Kimberly Elliott, Research Fellow, IIE. Robert Lawrence, Professor of International Trade, Harvard University and Senior Fellow, IIE Anne Trebilcock, Deputy Director, Policy Integration Department, ILO Panel IV: Social Protection: What Should National Policies Look Like? Sebastian Mallaby, The Washington Post, Moderator Ken Rogoff, Economic Counselor and Director of Research, IMF Carol Graham, Vice President and Director, Governance Studies Program, the Brookings Institution Dalmer Hoskins, Secretary General, International Social Security Administration ============================================================ Seeds of conflict Financial Times Published: December 18 2002 4:00 | Last Updated: December 18 2002 4:00 4db81a0.jpg US patience with the European Union's rejection of genetically modified foods is nearing an end. Having failed to persuade the EU to lift its de facto moratorium on approving new GM products, Washington appears poised to challenge the ban in the World Trade Organisation. But, far from resolving the problem, that would risk turning a tense stand-off into a crisis. As Brussels acknowledges, the US stands to win a WTO case. However, there is little reason to think a legal victory for Washington would cause the EU to open its market. Much more likely, it would stiffen political and popular resistance in countries opposed to GM foods, driving the final nail into faltering efforts to end the ban. EU defiance of a ruling against it would have serious consequences. It would further undermine the authority of the WTO disputes settlement procedures, already jeopardised by EU failure to respect a ruling on hormone-treated beef and by US delays in implementing decisions against its trade laws. If the world's biggest trade powers scoff at international law, why should others bother to heed it? EU failure to comply with an adverse WTO decision on GM foods could prompt the US to retaliate against European exports. As well as unfairly hurting European companies un-connected with the dispute, that would harm the US by raising barriers to imports from the EU. There would be no winners from such reprisals. Despite the compelling economic arguments against doing so, political pressures in the EU to counter-retaliate could then become irresistible. It has a devastating weapon in its existing right to impose $4bn (£2.5bn) of sanctions on the US, which has failed to comply with a WTO ruling against its foreign sales corporation tax law. If that right were exercised, the conflict could swiftly escalate out of control. The potential casualties are incalculable. But an early one would almost certainly be the Doha world trade round. Already facing uncertain prospects, the round would be doomed by a serious rupture in trade relations between Brussels and Washington, whose close co-operation is indispensable to the success of the negotiations. That grim scenario should give the US pause. But it should also have a sobering effect on the EU. Its ban on GM foods is based on no firm scientific evidence that they are unsafe. EU policy has been driven by scaremongering, resentment at US high-pressure tactics and an unedifying combination of political cravenness and opportunism. After the mad cow disease and foot-and-mouth crises, European consumers are unwilling to accept government assurances on food safety. Rebuilding the public trust essential to sound regulation will take years and require real commitment by EU governments to reform. It will not be achieved by bringing to the WTO disputes the organisation cannot hope to resolve. Understandable as US frustration is, litigation and trade wars offer no answers where reason, politics and diplomacy have so far failed. 4db820e.jpg Financial Times of London Allan Balliett wrote: > >Monsanto have gone too far and now they are in financial trouble. > > > >Have a look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2589789.stm > > Thinking so much about Percy Schmeiser recently (has anyone other > than Kara tested the site?), I seemed to recall that we were hearing > that Monsanto was going under after the terminator failure, also. Is > this a false memory? Or were they rope-a-doping us? > > -Allan
